Hi again Aly
āYouāve almost hit the counter argument on the head straight away. People eat plants. Thatās where the carbon comes from that they then breathe out. Where did those plants get that carbon from? The atmosphere. So plants suck in carbon from the atmosphere, we eat the plants and breathe out the carbon back to the atmosphere. Itās a closed loop. We donāt create more carbon, we eat it and release it. To be taken in by plants again.ā
Soā¦itās a closed loop, because the people are completing it by releasing the CO2.
Without that step it would be an open loop - where CO2 is taken in by the plants from the air, one that is very favourable to the environment.
What happens to the plant matter if it is not eaten by humans? Some of it likely still gets released - by rotting, or being eaten by other ruminants. Completing the loop.
But much of it will be taken in by the soil, helping grow more plants and trees. To this extent the loop is not closed surely? Only some of the CO2 is in it, AFAICS.
The people clearly do have an effect - they release CO2 from plants into the air, without which some of that Co2 would not be released.
I donāt know what Rancourt specifically said, but this loop idea seems a common rebuttal.
TBH it looks a bit blase to me.
Iāll leave with Rancourt until you find the smoking gun proving he is a fraud or a numpty.
But letās just explore this question a bit more, as I donāt see that it is as simple as you sayā¦
While looking unsuccessfully for Rancourtās quote I came across this site, where they have a forum devoted to the specific question we are discussing, viz:
" Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?"
Link: Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
There is a lot of discussion, and they are mostly scientists, whatever that means, but the ethos of the site is that the answer to this question is āNoā.
The idea of the site seems to be that the scientists will āScienceplainā the error of their ways to foolish climate deniers.
It doesnāt work like that in practice, partly because the posters inevitably complicate the question.
The thread is tightly moderated, has 160 posts and has run for 10 years!
But it struck me that the question itself is poorly specified.
-
Breathing being fundamental to life means it is a proxy representing someoneās entire life history.
It is therefore odd to have a āclosed loopā start at that point, when everything else about that person relevant to their CO2 flow that is implicated in the fact of them being alive, isnāt included.
-
The closed loop seems faulty to me. Itās only partially closed - you start with CO2 in the air, being absorbed by plants, some of which is the released via humans, and some which is not.
And that which is not, is buried (see what I did there ) and moreover, people raising it are patronized with the loop story - thatās what happens on that very serious scientific site! And possibly to Dr Rancourt as well.
I could be wrong about this but thereās more than an air of suppression about it. Not least because when it was queried on the site, there wasnāt a very scientific response, rather a dogmatic one.
-
The question ignores the quantitative aspect of this. Quite likely the human CO2 (even the breathing bit) contribution is dwarfed by the contribution made by burning fossil fuels - which they are quick to point out are not part of the same ācarbon cycleā under discussion, but rather is introducing fresh carbon.
However it may not be negligible, and will increase in relative terms as fossil fuels diminish. And it seems the question may be used as a proxy for minimising the effect of human populations assuming the burning of fossil fuels were to end.
For example, people who are ābreathing harmlesslyā are also requiring the destruction of CO2-reducing habitat in order to grow the food that they are later breathing out as CO2. So itās not just the breathing.
So it seems perfectly legit and scientific for (alleged) deniers to point out when this is issue not included, yet they are accused of being unscientific. (Shades of covid here ).
It strikes me that some of the official science being promoted is not the truth-oriented variety but rather a single dumbed-down message being tailored to the public gallery.
Itās almost as if the imperative might not be to reduce CO2 itself, but to advance the āno fossil fuelsā idea as a political goal.
Cheers